 | | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Have you tried contacting the curator of the group? (Assuming you're talking about broken links?) Otherwise, it would appear that the images for Eric Sophie's models (and ONLY Eric Sophie's models) were explicitly set to be a "broken" image: (...) (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Given Eric' recent use of DMCA notices to protect his copyrights I don't think you can neccessarily say that it is not suitable. Such an action protects Lugnet from recieving such notices for breaching his copyright by linking to his images. (...) (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Well, I admit I wasn't aware of Eric's recent stint with copyright notice issues, however, I still think this action was inappropriate. First off, it doesn't protect Lugnet to any large degree because Eric's posts specifically reference the (...) (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Dave, don't bother. I did it, and I emailed Rene, telling him that I had done it, that it would be changed back in a few days, and to let me know if he had any problem with it. Apparently that email didn't get to you. Have you been given (...) (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Nope, I was out of the loop on that one, and if I had been in it I probably would've voiced my opinion that it shouldn't happen. I am glad to hear that you talked to Rene about it beforehand, though. (...) I was granted access to change (...) (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) No point now - I was going to put it back anyway, probably later today. I still think it would be good to clarify your position WRT changing content, and add your email to the admin sidebar (and anyone else who has similar access). ROSCO (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Well, define what's an admin? I have access as well, but I don't consider myself an admin. Admins implies responsibility as well as access - if someone's email is on that list, it means it's ok to contact them if you have any sort of adminish (...) (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) I think this current misunderstanding is a case in point. Wasn't there once an admin@lugnet.com email that forwarded to all the current admins? I think such a tool would be useful, users only have 1 address to contact, and you guys can argue (...) (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Exactly. Thank you Dave. Bob you also knew about this and want to see how much of a reaction this would stir. Ross, if you are going to play games as a curator, you should resign, or have your status revoked. yours, Eric Sophie ===...=== Sent (...) (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) I think what seems to be missing is the description of what global curators should do and what they should *not* do. This is the first time to my knowledge that an instance like this has happened (where one curator has overwritten another (...) (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar malicious behavior
|
|
Eric, I'm glad to hear your position, although I'd appreciate it if you recused yourself from the public discussion as I'm concerned that it will only agitate things further. DaveE (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Hi all and sundry :-) ROSCO: Probably your email made it into my spam folder, sorry! I haven't read such an email and therefore don't know what happened, and whether I would have endorsed it beforehand or not. Well, seems that we all survived (...) (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Strange, haven't received this one too. Ross, have you sent your email also on that date? -Rene (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Yes, 10th Feb local time. ROSCO (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Verdammt. I will use a second forwarding to an external archiving inbox in the future. -Rene (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I have requested that Lugnet cancel my original message. I assume cancelling the entire thread is undoable? I am sorry for my lame attempt at humor and apologise to anyone who may be affected, including esp. Ross and Eric. Bob (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Hi Bob, as mentioned via email, cancelling your post wouldn't make any sense and deleting the whole thread isn't an option. Anyway, I'm not a friend of deleting anything simply because it becomes a little bit unpleasing. This only would cause (...) (18 years ago, 12-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Well done Eric. You continue to amaze me. By 'lawyering up' over something as petty as this you've made yourself look an even bigger idiot than before, something I didn't think possible. And it's 'copyright', which should give you a clue about (...) (18 years ago, 13-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | malicious behavior
|
|
(...) -snip- As per the LUGNET Terms of Use, I object to your name calling and trollish behavior: "Do not post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, racist, violence glorifying (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Sophie wrote: <snip> (...) Seriously, Eric--walk away from this--you're better than this. Dave K (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: insane behavior
|
|
(...) And you up the ante yet again. Amazing. (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
Eric, I have already asked you publically and privately, PLEASE STOP. Just walk away from this thread. DaveE (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | (murfl)
|
|
(murfl) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | (murfl)
|
|
(murfl) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
umm, where is the "View Raw Message" link (veiwing in tree veiw) Tim (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) doh, seen it now Tim (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior = Auto murfl
|
|
(...) Murfl, (lol) ok, that administrative measure will have to do, I with draw my complaint, after I have communicated privately and publicly with, and to the admin's, we can move on. (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
Re: (murfl) My apologies to LUGNet and to those I've inconvenienced- I just got caught up in the event. I don't hold any personal grudge against Eric, I just sometimes wish he would walk away and not respond. Like I should have done. Again, I (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Actually, the available evidence indicates that he's, you know, not. So I think it's probably better to appeal to the people poking him. And since I used to be one of them, who better to deliver the message? Guys, he's only worth so much of (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) You have used this term incorrectly. Properly used, it is: D'OH! ====== Thank you. JOHN (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Shouldn't this be correctly posted in lugnet.admin.terms? Tim PS. Fup-to set to .off-topic.PUN ===== (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) The admins have terms???? How long do they last? Or are they like kings? If so, I certainly didn't vote for them. JOHN (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) About 10 weeks in Australia. Not sure how long it is in Germany. Tim (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!!! Dave K (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Actually, you'd be qrong--the available evidence is that he, you know, is better than this. However, being sniped at by, well, many, many people, is grating and I can't blame someone for lashing out. That said, I fully realize that his lashing (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I've stayed out of this thread until this comment. There is no evidence that Eric is in anyway better than this. There is plenty of evidence that he is not. Just because people get a rise out of him doesn't mean he is well-behaved. I had (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
Tim, what was the last thing I did wrong? Refresh our memories and back up your story. Then tell me what any of this has to do with you or the Technic Side bar and Ross's actions. Since you like to molest my images, having broke the law several (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Eric, The last thing you did wrong was to submit a DMCA image against me for an image the wasn't breaching your copyright. The image was legal. As I have explained to you by email it is called Fair Use for parody. That happened a few days ago (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) And the American Government... (URL) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tim's beef behavior
|
|
(...) -Snip- (...) -snip- (...) I bow to your awesomeness. Ever think to ask for the images? That was "Outside" LUGNET, now What'd I do "On" LUGNET? Again, bowing to your awesomeness. (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
Any chance we can fix the murfling code to spell the subject correctly? Yeah yeah, it isn't officially a word anyway, but I still think "(Murfled)" would be a better subject for murfled posts than "murfl". ROSCO (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I had a whole beautiful (if I do so say myself) exposition here but somehow the page refreshed and it all went 'bye bye'! So I start again, and I've noticed from past experiences, that the second time through is never as good as the first one. (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote: <snip> (...) I couldn't give a rats ass about DMCA, 'fair usage', 'freedom of speech' or '1st ammendment rights' or whatever people are going on about now--it's all obfuscating the actual issue. (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tim's beef behavior
|
|
(...) Why bother? I was legally allowed to use them and given your typical behaviour I find it very unlikely you would volunteer to let me use them to poke fun at you. You can twist and turn all you like but what you did was morally wrong in my (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) (*this is such a joke, I am just having fun in the way I transcribe the events*) Righgght! Brilliant, and upon further research one can plainly see, that another party, usual suspect, utters a complaint unto Eric Sophie's person, there by (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) --snip-- (...) If you think that Eric deserves an apology then perhaps you should apologise to him. Since you had as much to do with the original issue as I did then you owe him an apology as much as I do. Furthermore I've never argued that (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tim's beef behavior
|
|
(...) I stand before your awesomeness. I yeild oh great brick master Tim. For your awesomeness is so great how can I build ye. The bricks are to small, I am afraid I can not compete. \\\...\\\ (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I'm sorry but I still feel that your choice to single out Eric as being "better than this" was implying that others weren't. Eric's actions lately imply that he is in no way better than this. This latest incident was started by Eric (off (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Allister: Please do not call Eric an idiot. Thank you. Eric: Are you in earnest with the statement above? Because there's a way for ME to protect LUGNET and me from such a hassle, but I doubt this would be what you want. Please be very (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Once again obfuscation--my replies to your comments-- 'I’ve stayed out of this thread until this comment. There is no evidence that Eric is in anyway better than this. There is plenty of evidence that he is not. Just because people get a rise (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) My regrets sir, I apologize. Eric Sophie (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) To be clear, I was never threatened with legal action. A DMCA notification was served against Northstar (host of jlug.net) regarding pictures linked from jlug.net (but hosted by maj.com). It was Northstar that was obliged to remove the link, (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Sorry. I meant to say Al. Tim (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Timothy Gould wrote: <snip> (...) That wasn't my conscious intent at the beginning, but thinking about it now--Others were provoking him. You're right--they weren't better than him. Sorry if the truth hurts, but there the (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I think you should start writing in English first. (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
--snip-- I think this entire argument can be put down to a disagreement over what evidence is applicable to the use in the argument. I think you're as unlikely to convince me that your choices are valid as I am to convince you that mine are. We are (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure it out
|
|
(...) You still as a fellow Lego Fan, took another LUGNET member's pictures repeatedly from Brickshelf to use in a mean spirited manner is completely uncool for what ever your reasons. Until You, Kevoh, Jude and Soren used my pictures to wage your (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) You're doing a great job there, Dave. This is the sort of input that Lugnet's been sorely lacking since ++Lar abandonded the community. You just need to turn a few more catchphrases now and then and your transformation will be complete. (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Ahh in my haste I indeed make aaa huge gramatical error, look at that! You are so kind to point it oout, you are so awesome. You are so cool! Mega bow to your awesomeness. You made that Roo-Mech one time, it was so cool. (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure it out
|
|
(...) --snip-- (...) Thank you for your apology. I too am sorry I sent you the profane image yesterday (and for what it's worth it was never made public and I'd deleted it from online long before I wrote to you). You are however completely wrong (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure it out
|
|
(...) It is at this time we should remember the sacrifices made by Communitity minded hero Lar+ , for in his zeal to make LUGNET a better place, sometimes over did it. Same applies to me as to yourself and a few others. Let us be mindful of brother (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I can only aspire to ++Lar status, I coulod never succeed him... I miss a few people around here... Lar being one of 'em, if only because I loved the heated discussions we had... (thoough there were other reasons, to be sure...) Dave K (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure it out
|
|
(...) No. It is at this time that you should leave Larry's name out of your psychedelic blathering and just STFU already. JOHN (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Here's the thing--my justification for 'choosing evidence', if you wish to call it that, is like anytrhing else So here's a hypothetical situation-- Bob had a pretty 'transgressive' start to life. He had gotten into some unlawful mischief in (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Laugh at him all you wish, but have the cojones to do it to his face, not behind his back. Jerk. JOHN (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Well I don't think Al could get much more public than Lugnet, do you? ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I'm sure I'll get a private email for Lar, or at least someone will, if he doesn't like anything I say about him here. (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I said to his face, not in public. What makes you think he is still among the populus that reads LUGNET? (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) What makes you think he isn't? ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Hello??? McLaren???? You are getting a public one right now. JOHN (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) He never posts anymore. What makes you think he is? (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) (URL) Never???> (...) Seems to me he regularly chimes in every few months. But I could be wrong. ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) You are. Twice in the past half year. So what makes you think he is? (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) And just how does that make my statement "he regularly chimes in every few months" wrong? (...) See previous post. ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Because twice in the past half year isn't the same as regularly chiming in every few months. (...) So you are saying that because he has posted twice in the past half year, he is regular reader of LUGNET? Sorry; non sequitur. (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) They're big shoes to fill, no doubt. (...) I miss him too, for perhaps slightly different reasons. FWIW, I'd miss Eric if he ever left Lugnet too. (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) LOL please explain the difference to me? (...) No I'm saying that because he posts every few months, that he is still among the populus that reads Lugnet. Whether he only reads when he feels like it, or when he gets an email from someone, is (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Hang on, isn't this usually the time for an oh so high-larious Monty Python quote, not Back To The Future? I'm not sure exactly what your problem is here, John. I bear no malice towards ++lar, and certainly didn't intend any in that message. I (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Past performance is no guarantee of future results. (what you snipped: non sequitur) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) No it isn't, but it IS what makes me think he is still among the populus that reads Lugnet. And that is what you asked, isn't it? ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) You got it. Well done. (...) That "incident", if you will, in my mind marks the time when he finally gave up on LUGNET, and so any ref to that is a sore spot for me; call it my personal "N word". When e invoked his name, I admit, I lost it. (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Fair enough. JOHN (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Really though John, for standing up for our friend, you are teh awesome too. (...) Again let us pause and wish him luck and good bricks where ever he may be. Let us keep warm the bosom that would warmly embrace him, should he be so inclined to (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Dave, Your analogy is incorrect. It would be correct if Bob had done something in another town and then someone in the town hall had abused Bob for his actions in the other town, Bob had defended himself, James had said Bob was reformed and (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Hear! Hear! 'Nuff said (1) Dave K 1. adding to my repertoire of 'Dave-isms' (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I wouldn't necessarily call my 'tirades' in this thread (and others) a form of 'community policing'. I was adhering to my personal sense of justice (much like Helo did last episode of BSG) and 'standing up' for what I perceived to be a (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) huh?? The analogy was as close to apt as I had the time to make--Eric (being Bob) had committed transgressions on LUGNET in the past for which he was 'officially' forgiven. Now smomeone maliciosly attacked Eric, and people have chimed in (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Did you have to use "Bob"? It's not THAT common of a name, is it?... ;-) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) I have a brother-in-law Bob, a cousin Bob, friends named Bob... almost as common as the Daves I know... I was going to use John Doe or Richard Roe, but somehow Snoopy-as-lawyer kept on running thru my head... Dave K (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) I was just kidding really - for years, I had two classmates named Robert in my grade school days and then in my HS days, I had 2 other Parkers in my homeroom (they were brother and sister and I ended up sitting between them due to our first (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Believe it or don't, my next door neighbor's name is Bob Doe. JOHN (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Actually, the line for which I was trolling was: "You don't vote for kings". (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Rats!! I jumped right past that! I should be spanked.... Nevermind. Dave K (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) And in doing so missed the savory "Lady of the lake" bit. Really, I can't keep lofting these puffballs into your court and not have you put them away! (...) No, Minifig, my little yellow friend, now is not the time for "nevermind".... A (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Hmmmm *tempted* Then remembers just how much trouble I am already in, and silently walks away. Janey "More innocent than she appears, Red Brick" (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) "Good evening!" JOHN (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Well, he could have used Tom, Dick, or Harry, but then I would have had to pipe up ;-) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) "Regularly chiming in every few months" over a period of 6 months means chiming in twice, spaced "regularly" over the time, i.e at 3 months and 6 months. Chiming in twice in the last 6 months could mean chiming in on Day One and Day Two, and (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Until a few years ago, I was able to answer "Yes, he is!" whenever someone said "Bob's your uncle!" ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) OK. I thought I could assume people would read my question in the context of the current thread, but I guess that was a rash assumption. So please explain how that difference applies in this particular case? ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) You keep out of this, Harry. Dave! (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Ross, The difference is Tom uses a calendar that has months that are 20 days long on average. Those crazy Americans, first they mess up DST now they have a new calendar. Jude (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: DST sucks! (was: malicious behavior)
|
|
(...) LOL ummmm shhhh, don't mention DST when talking to an Australian ;) ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) You can't assume that because he has posted on LUGNET a few times, he is reading or aware of anything that is going on on LUGNET. The only real way to know if someone is a regular reader is if that person posts often each week. Sure, there are (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: DST sucks! (was: malicious behavior)
|
|
(...) Sorry Ross, I didn't know you had it so bad. (URL) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I think you can assume that he is aware of whatever he replied to. (...) That's one way, but not the ONLY way. Real or otherwise. (...) I was never asked to verify anything - I was simply asked "What makes you think he is still among the (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: omnipotent behavior
|
|
(...) I firmly believe lar has a team of small girls in Africa tapping away on laptops that read the entire internets and give him a daily report. It's the only possible explanation for his apparent ability to be everywhere. (...) The entire world (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: DST sucks! (was: malicious behavior)
|
|
(...) I feel his pain. It happens here in Arizona too: (URL) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I never said it was a very good joke, nor necessarily accurate. When you mentioned community policing earlier in the thread, it just struck an ironic chord with me. ... (...) Well, at least someone's' taking this thread, and indeed Eric, (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
|
(...) Go figure; another Dave! Nice of you to drop by, Dave! What, did your a team of small girls in Africa send you a "heads up" of mirth and frivolity? :-) I have a question for you if you have the time. John "Bob" Neal (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: omnipotent behavior
|
|
(...) Oodalalee! All Hail Larry! ===...=== JOHN (Larritarian since 1999) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Allister McLaren wrote: <snip> (...) You misread me, sir. I'm not 'taking Eric seriuously'. I am, however, taking injustice seriously. As should you. As should anyone. The second we allow injustices to slide, then, well, (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Where was the injustice? Jude (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) In terms of seriousness, someone fiddling with images on a toy forum rates pretty low with me, which, incidentally, is the exact reason I dived into this thread in the first place. Who in their right mind seriously thinks starting legal (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) After all this time, my memory's a little foggy on that subject... I think I'll go find a link to it. Nyaah, I'm done. Dave K (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Conversely, you make my point. If he doesn't reply to something, we can't assume he's read it, and it would be off his radar, or as I put it, "behind his back." Your initial point was, because he posts now and then, he's around and aware of (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) No, my initial point was because he posts now and then, I THINK he is still among the populace that reads Lugnet. (...) Why don't you ask him/her? (...) Thanks, I'll remember that next time I'm posting at a latin forum. (...) Now you're (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Who in their right mind would provoke a 'known entitiy' and not expect the 'known result'--isn't that the very definition of insanity? I'm all for a debate about the scalability of transgressions, if you wanna go down that road. That said, an (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) But you admitted that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, so I don't know why you'd think THAT. (...) Why don't you stop being obtuse and answer the question? I want to know another way you seem to THINK there is of knowing this (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Because I DO. (...) I'm sorry for being so obtuse - I was simply pointing out that asking them is one other way to know (assuming you receive / believe the answer). Standing and looking over their shoulder while they read is another. Do you (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Who said I didn't expect it? (...) Show me where I asked for a 'bye'. If I've breached the TOS, I'll take my lumps. I don't consider anything that's happened here a 'malicious' provocation. 'Mischievous' at worst. And your repeated claims that (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Well, my point is that you have no reason to think that. (...) You know my neighbor, and where we live? I chose my neighbor precisely because you don't know him. You don't know anything about him. Just as you don't know anything about any (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) OK. Let's try this from the other direction, kiddies. The populace that still reads Lugnet is a group of people. It contains many subgroups, for example: The people that still read lugnet.org.scibrick The people that still read a few groups (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I think what Dave is driving at is that even though your actions may technically be with the TOS, it is a question of civility. Pushing people's hot buttons and watching the fireworks isn't what LUGNET is about. Lugnet is about laughing with (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I'm not sure why you're bringing Jlug into the discussion here. If I could set the fut to lugnet.org.jlug right now, I would. But now that you have, I say you're arguing from ignorance. There's a far greater sense of camraderie there than I've (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) He's not necessarily in the "still reading" subgroup category. He could've been just popping over to LUGNET when he got "pinged" by a regular reader, or after a major event like an ILTCO convention. Which is exactly what I suspect is the case. (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Only because it is the only other forum which I know you use, that's all. Really. (...) It wasn't my intention to insinuate that. I was making a comparison based on tone. Style. Manner. That sort of thing. (...) My only point is that a JLUG (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) He could also be still reading. (...) Why do you suspect that? (...) (URL) Oh I doubt it>. Of course that could just be someone impersonating him. (...) I never claimed to know about his Lugnet reading habits. (...) Or even moot. Yes, I do (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Yes, Ross, you made that perfectly clear. What you haven't made so clear is WHY you think that for no apparent reason. (...) Because I have no evidence to the contrary. You are obtuse. (...) Is that why you know so much about him-- because you (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, John Neal wrote: snip (...) snip (...) FIREWORKS!!! i LOVE fireworks!!! its what I DO !!!! Chris www.thepyroguys.com 1. then what is the number one thing lugnet is about? (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I'm not saying it's an injustice that requires severe punishment. It's your perspective that you need to work on. The facts-- Person A, in a position of authority, changed links on the Technic sidebar. The *only* links that were changed were (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) :sigh: (URL) and (URL) (...) Are you saying he's being accidentally mischievous? (...) No, you probably can't. (...) You chose to butt in with the adversarial stuff. I figured you liked it that way. :shrug: (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Special deals for lawyers, too! I love it:-) lol (...) And the number one thing LUGNET is about is.... (at least, me) Camaraderie. But hey, I'm into pyro, too! (URL) (I'm in some of those pics!) JOHN (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(snip everybody) Here's the thing, Dave: you're totally right. But there's no point in worrying about it any more. There seems to be a consensus that it's OK to bully Eric on LUGNET. I've (URL) protested it before>, but apparently the admins and the (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Why the sigh? It says JLUG is not for children and there are no rules. Fine. Now this part I don't get: "The JLUG is a group of Lego enthusiast that are not geographically centred but certainly work together through online communication. After (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) <spits pop all over screen> I hope this is an example of that Canadian humour you were talking about! The Libby trial makes this kerfuffle seem like world war! :-) JOHN (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Kinda sad, really... ended in a whimper instead of a bang... Eh, I have no idea what the results will be. After all the data I've read, it's pretty convoluted--who said what to whom and when... And, as I'm told around here, in the grande (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Say, you're not in the press corps, are you? ;-) Ah, the good, old days of Watergate... (...) Exactly. (...) To Plame? Only that she can get rich off of a book/TV movie deal. Bottom line-- much ado about nothing. JOHN (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Standing up! Was... Re: malicious behavior
|
|
Moving this back to o.t.d. for debatable reasions... (...) As a somewhat parenthetical point to what Marc said above (though flowing right from his poat)-- At what point should people 'stand up' against (maybe perceived) transgressions? I mean, (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Don't assume. I have only read what is in o-t-d, I have not gone back to the original thread, and judging by what I've seen in here, I don't feel the need to waste the time. (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Well I guess if he has a group of African girls with laptops replying for him then maybe he is unaware of what he has replied to. ROSCO (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Why do you believe in god? (...) John, I think this could be cleared up easily by looking at how we interpret words. Lar has posted tice in the last six months, you consider that "not still reading", I consider it "still reading occasionally". (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Before my time. Ross is the man to ask about that. I don't particularly care. (...) I never said it was. 'Shenanigans' is just a turn of phrase. He seems quite sincere, and verbose. (...) Me too. And sometimes (not every time as some seem to (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Note that until then, the traffic link is still on every other page besides the main page. ROSCO (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Actually, there ARE other ways-- ish-- but they're not easy! And they're not necessarily open to everyone. For instance, an admin could check on the Lugnet server to see how many times he's logged in. But it's not public information. You can (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) <snip> Verbose? Who, me?? Dave K -no one around here but us scarecrows... (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) In fact it wasn't all online. (...) It wasn't. And the FAQ doesn't say it was. It says "it started making sense to have a group that could participate online". I see no "need" in that excerpt at all. Just as there was no "need" for the (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) See, Al, at the end of the day, you're just a plain jerk. JOHN (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) I prefer to think of Al as a jerk with the lot. ROSCO (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) You'd know. JOHN (18 years ago, 17-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) LOL, and again you take "I think" and change it to an assertion of knowledge. ROSCO (18 years ago, 17-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) You are wrong. I think I would know, since I wrote that, and I was the one joking around. The whole thing started as a joke in real life, because I am geographically challenged from other "local" groups. You know, friends joking... real people (...) (18 years ago, 18-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) It's not shocking, just unclear. Not that it really matters, but these friends with whom you joked-- they aren't AFOLs I assume, because presumabley they are the ones with whom you are geographically challenged. Perhaps you joked with (...) (18 years ago, 18-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
|
(...) Snipped (...) No, they are AFOLs. Just because I am geographically challenged to them, doesnt mean I didnt actually make the drive (numerous times). Snipped more... (...) Indeed. (...) Exactly (*grins*). Janey "Delusional, Red Brick" (18 years ago, 18-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Am I the only one who is bothered by the total anarchy on display here? A LUGNET curator abuses his priviledges in order to harass another member, and the official response is "no harm done?" Ross, you owe Eric an apology, public and sincere. (...) (18 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Nope. (...) Yep. JOHN (18 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Definitely not. I'm deeply disturbed by the actions of Rosco (*and* others). It looks like lugnet is falling apart, and he's helping. I was also astonished by the lack of administrator reaction to Rosco's actions. Even if we only see half a (...) (18 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Hi Chris, thank you very much for your thoughts. Be sure I've given this whole issue careful consideration. But as far as I can see, there was a lot of healthy discussion and I'm pretty sure some people will rethink their futur behaviour. I (...) (18 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Rene Hoffmeister wrote: - snip - (...) Rene, I understand your reluctance to pursue administrative repurcussions in this latest flare-up. Unfortunately, perception of administrative bias is as damaging as actual bias. A lack (...) (18 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) No, it bothers me because (as happened in this case) an email to the Lugnet admins does not reach ALL Lugnet admins, and one of the admins that was "out of the loop" reverted my changes. While not a problem in this case, I can see a potential (...) (18 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) It seems that NONE of the admins received your e-mail, because the implication I've been reading is that NONE of them would have told you to go ahead. But the point is, you shouldn't need the admins to tell you when you are crossing that line, (...) (18 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Well, that's even worse, and should be fixed. (...) No, that's a different point entirely. (...) I don't think anyone had a problem with Dave reverting the pics, do you? (...) At least (URL) one person did>, and preferred to email the admins (...) (18 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) A point which is still apparently lost on you? (...) So you sent e-mail to the admins, and then in the absence of a response you assumed that you had administrative approval to alter somebody else's content? No problem. Sure. (...) Under the (...) (18 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) No. The admins will determine if I crossed any line, and take action as necessary. (...) Firstly, that has nothing to do with the point I was making about wanting ALL admins to be "in the loop" when someone "contacts admin". And secondly, the (...) (18 years ago, 19-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
"Chris Phillips" <drvegetable@comcast.net> wrote in message news:JDqEKz.JzF@lugnet.com... (...) Chris ... I think you are trying to do little more than argue an argument to it's unarguable end. That is why Ross Crawford redirected it to .debate (...) (18 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) So it's OK for you to abuse administrative privilege, as long as only one or two people are bothered by it? Especially if one of the two is a person that a significant people on LUGNET feel it's OK to bully? I just have to post here to say I (...) (18 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Gimme a break. This is a prank gone wrong, not an abuse of power. Deleting all of a member's posts, or breaking links in a way that couldn't be restored, that would be an abuse. This was actually a little bit funny (and a little mean, I (...) (18 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Unfortunately, I believe you are correct. (...) I don't know his motives any better than I assume you do, but it seems to me that he moved it to .debate in order to marginalize my attempts to steer this discussion back toward the central issue (...) (18 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) I strongly agree with Kelly's response above. The role of administrator is a priveledge that should be bestowed upon trustworthy and honorable people. The priveledge should be revoked if used outside of the purvue of responsible administrative (...) (18 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) same answers as John -mark (18 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
This is directed to all people who would like to see sanctions against Ross. (...) I am so sorry that I haven't received Ross' and Eric's emails regarding this matter (both sent before Bob's posting), because if I would have received one of them or (...) (18 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.curators)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) So, you'd like to see a public reprimand from Rene, and/or a public apology from Ross? I think at this point, it's clear that: - What Ross did was not acceptable (in my book certainly, and I assume in Rene's as well). - There was (...) (18 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Nothing so dramatic; and I've seen (URL) Rene's recent post>, so that's settled. By "core issue" I was referring to a perception of potential future admin malfeasance. While the immediate flurry has been beaten to death, I remain unconvinced (...) (18 years ago, 20-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Thank you for clarifying your position Rene. I also think it's worth clarifying my statement above. As a curator at Lugnet, I will try my best to act responsibly, and I cannot envisage any set of circumstances that would cause me to ever (...) (18 years ago, 21-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: Technic sidebar thingie
|
|
(...) Thank you, Rene, for issuing a formal statement about the resolution of this incident, and to Dave for filling in some details. In retrospect, this was the missing link which publicly clarifies the official stance on this issue. It is good to (...) (18 years ago, 21-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: indignant behavior
|
|
(...) Tut tut, John. That's bordering on incivility. Think of the children reading this. (18 years ago, 26-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
